[Bug 451772] Review Request: ume-launcher - a full screen application launcher for gnome

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=451772





--- Comment #6 from Tim Lauridsen <tim.lauridsen at googlemail.com>  2008-10-03 00:47:43 EDT ---
rpmlint ume-launcher-0.6.3-1.fc9.i386.rpm 
ume-launcher.i386: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/xdg/autostart/ume-launcher.desktop
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

rpmlint ume-launcher-0.6.3-1.fc9.src.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
The warning is ok and can be ignored.

(. not checked, * = ok, X = not OK)


* Package is matching naming guidelines.
* spec file in named %{name}.spec 
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible have the right good license shortname :
LGPLv2+
* License file must be in %doc (it it exists)
* Spec file is written in American English
* Spec file is legible.
X Sources match upstream.
  MD5SUM:
 f9699b350edd71acf727411cf7d0b287  rpmbuild/SOURCES/ume-launcher_0.6.3.tar.gz
 a9b58c94a1c4c0d59018ff14f4e3aa34  Download/ume-launcher_0.6.3.tar.gz


* summary and description fine
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} is used
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* changelog format fine 
* Packager/Vendor/Distribution/Copyright tags not used
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* Package compiles and build into RPM's on : i386 etc.
* no Exclude Arch 
* BuildRequires for all build requerements (- the ones on the Exception list)
* locales are handed using %find_lang
* no shared libs 
* Package own all created directories.
* No duplicate files in %files 
* Every %files section includes a %defattr(...) line
* Package has a %clean with a rm -rf %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
* consistently use of macros
* Package contains code or or permissable content.
* No large documentation
* files in %doc dont affect runtime.
* no header files
* no static libs
* package has no pkgconfig (.pc) files 
* no -devel subpackage 
* no ..la libtool archives
* gui application, desktop-file-validate is used on .desktop file 
* package don't own files and dirs owned by other packages.
* %install starts with an rm -rf %{buildroot} 
* rpm package filenames is in valid UTF-8.
* no Rpath 
* no config files
* no init scripts 
* no %makeinstall used
* no Requires(pre,post)
* rpmlint is ok on SRPM 
* rpmlint is ok on RPM's.


Fix the sources and i will approve it

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.